(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and
Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state that "our results suggest
that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase in any of
the probabilities -- arrest, sentencing or execution -- tends to reduce the
crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer
murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10." (1) Their data base used
nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from 1977-1996.

(2001) University of Houston Professors Dale Cloninger and Roberto Marchesini,
found that death penalty moratoriums contribute to more homicides. They found:
"The (Texas) execution hiatus (in 1996), therefore, appears to have spared few,
if any, condemned prisoners while the citizens of Texas experienced a net 90 (to
as many as 150) additional innocent lives lost to homicide. Politicians
contemplating moratoriums may wish to consider the possibility that a seemingly
innocuous moratorium on executions could very well come at a heavy cost." (3)

(2001) SUNY (Buffalo) Professor Liu finds that legalizing the death penalty not
only adds capital punishment as a deterrent but also increases the marginal
productivity of other deterrence measures in reducing murder rates. "Abolishing
the death penalty not only gets rid of a valuable deterrent, it also decreases
the deterrent effect of other punishments." "The deterrent effects of the
certainty and severity of punishments on murder are greater in retentionist
(death penalty) states than in abolition (non death penalty) states." (4)

(2003) Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that each execution results, on
average, in five fewer murders. Longer waits on death row reduce the deterrent
effect. Therefore, recent legislation to shorten the time prior to execution
should increase deterrence and thus save more innocent lives. Moratoriums and
other delays should put more innocents at risk. In addition, capital punishment
deters all kinds of murders, including crimes of passion and murders by
intimates. Murders of both blacks and whites decrease after executions. (5)

(2003) FCC economist Dr. Paul Zimmerman finds: "Specifically, it is estimated
that each state execution deters somewhere between 3 and 25 murders per year (14
being the average). Assuming that the value of human life is approximately $5
million {i.e. the average of the range estimates provided by Viscussi (1993)},
our estimates imply that society avoids losing approximately $70 million per
year on average at the current rate of execution all else equal." The study used
state level data from 1978 to 1997 for all 50 states (excluding Washington
D.C.). (6)

(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and
Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that "The results are boldly clear:
executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during
moratoriums. The results are consistent across before-and-after comparisons and
regressions regardless of the data's aggregation level, the time period, or the
specific variable to measure executions." (7)

The findings reflect reason, common sense and history.

"According to the standard economic model of crime, a rational offender would
respond to perceived costs and benefits of committing crime." "Capital
punishment is particularly significant in this context, because it represents a
very high cost for committing murder (loss of life). Thus, the presence of
capital punishment in a state, or the frequency with which it is used, should
unequivocally deter homicide." Furthermore, "an increase in pardons
(commutations) implies a decrease in the probability of execution, which
economic theory predicts should have a positive (increase) impact on murder
rates." (8)

Isaac Ehrlich (1975) provided the first systemic analysis of the relationship
between capital punishment and the crime of murder along with the first
empirical analysis of the deterrence hypothesis. He found that each execution
deterred, on average, 8 murders. Many additional studies have found
corroborating evidence supporting the deterrent effect of the death penalty --
from the United States (Ehrlich, 1977, Layson, 1985, Cloninger, 1992, Ehrlich
and Liu, 1999, Dezhbakhsh et al, 2000) and Canada (Layson 1983) and the UK (Wolpin,
1978). (9)

The potential for negative consequences deters some behavior. The most severe
criminal sanction -- execution -- does not contradict that finding. Reason,
common sense, history and the weight of the studies support the deterrent effect
of the death penalty. The death penalty protects innocent lives. The absence of
the death penalty sacrifices innocent lives.

Is there any group, be they criminologists, historians, psychologists,
economists, philosophers, physicians, journalists or criminals that does not
recognize that the prospect of negative consequences constrains or deters the
behavior of some? Of course not -- not even fiction writers so speculate. Even
irrational people wear seat belts, choose not to smoke and do not rob police
stations because of the potential for negative consequences.

Reason, history and common sense all support that the potential for negative
consequences deters or alters behavior. In short, incentives, negative or
positive, matter. That is undisputed.

Numerous, previous studies have also supported a deterrence finding. And the
studies that find a deterrent effect of other criminal sanctions give additional
support to the deterrent effect of the death penalty, because, if lesser
sanctions deter, then we know that more severe sanctions also deter. The studies
that find a deterrent effect of 1. increased police presence, or any other
levels of security; 2. arrest/arrest rates; 3. criminal sentencing/incarceration
terms; and 4. the presence of rules, laws and statutes all provide additional,
collateral support for the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And there are
likely hundreds, if not thousands, of such studies and examples (database in
progress).

lII. Negative consequences matter

Many have discounted a deterrent effect because of the irrationality of
potential and active criminals. However, both reason and the evidence support
that the potential for negative consequences does affect criminal behavior.

Criminals who try to conceal their crime do so for only one reason -- fear of
punishment. Likely, more than 99% of all criminals, including capital
murderers, act in such a fashion. Fear of capture does not exist without an
expectation of punishment.

This doesn't mean that they sit down before every crime, most crimes or even
their first crime, and contemplate a cost to benefit analysis of a criminal
action. Weighing negative consequences may be conscious or subconscious,
thoughtful or instinctive. And we instinctively know the potential negative
consequences of some actions. Even pathetically stupid or irrational criminals
will demonstrate such obvious efforts to avoid detection. And there is only one
reason for that -- fear of punishment.

When dealing with less marginalized personalities, those who choose not to
murder, such is a more reasoned group. It would be illogical to assume that a
more reasoned group would be less responsive to the potential for negative
consequences. Therefore, it would be illogical to assume that some potential
murderers were not additionally deterred by the more severe punishment of
execution.

As legal writer and death penalty critic Stuart Taylor observes: "All criminal
penalties are based on the incontestable theory that most (or at least many)
criminals are somewhat rational actors who try so hard not to get caught because
they would prefer not to be imprisoned. And most are even keener about staying
alive than about avoiding incarceration." (10)

Based upon the overwhelming evidence that criminals do respond to the potential
of negative consequences, reason supports that executions deter and that they
are an enhanced deterrent over lesser punishments.

IV. The pre trial, trial and death row evidence - the survival effect

At every level of the criminal justice process, virtually all criminals do
everything they can to lessen possible punishments. I estimate that less than
1% of all convicted capital murderers request a death sentence in the punishment
phase of their trial. The apprehended criminals' desire for lesser punishments
is overwhelming and unchallenged.

Of the 7300 inmates sentenced to death since 1973, 85, or 1.2% have waived
remaining appeals and been executed. 98.8% have not waived appeals. The
evidence is overwhelming that murderers would rather live on death row than
die. Why? The survival effect -- life is preferred over death and death is
feared more than life. Even on death row, that is the rule.

Even such marginalized personalities as capital murderers fear death more than
imprisonment. And that which we fear the most, deters the most. (kudos to
Ernest van den Haag and many others)

It is logical to conclude that some of those less marginalized personalities,
who choose not to murder, also, overwhelmingly, fear death more than life, and,
we, thus, logically conclude that some are deterred from murdering because of
the enhanced deterrent effect of execution.

The evidence for the survival effect in pretrial, trial and appeals is
overwhelming and that weighs in favor of execution as a deterrent and as an
enhanced deterrent over lesser sentences.

V. If unsure about deterrence

Common sense, reason and history all support that the potential for negative
consequences restricts the behavior of some. But, if unsure of deterrence, we
face the following dilemma -- If executions do deter, halting executions causes
more innocents to be murdered and gives those living murderers the opportunity
to harm and murder again. If the death penalty does not deter, and we do
execute, we punish murderers as the jury deemed appropriate and we prevent those
executed murderers from harming or murdering again.

Oddly, death penalty opponents believe that the burden of proof is on those who
say the death penalty is a deterrent. Clearly it is not. The weight of the
evidence, within reason, history, common sense and the social sciences is that
the potential for negative consequences restricts the behavior of some. That is
not in dispute. Furthermore, if opponents cannot prove it is not a deterrent,
which they never have and never will, then they are the ones who risk
sacrificing innocents, both by absence of deterrence and reduced incapacitation.

Regardless of jurisdiction, under all debated scenarios, more innocents are put
at risk when we fail to execute. Any alleged concern for innocents weighs in
favor of executions.

Vl. The individual deterrent effect

The individual deterrent effect is represented by those who state that they were
deterred from committing a murder only because of the prospects of a death
sentence. Individual cases support the enhanced deterrent effect. (11)

One Iowa prisoner, who escaped from a transportation van, with a number of other
prisoners, stated that he made sure that the overpowered guards were not harmed,
because of his fear of the death penalty in Texas. The prisoners were being
transported through Texas, on their way to New Mexico, when the escape
occurred. Most compelling is that he was a twice convicted murderer from a non
death penalty state, Iowa. In addition, he was under the false impression that
Texas had the death penalty for rape and, as a result, also protected the woman
guard from assault. (12)

New York Law School Professor Robert Blecker recorded his interview with a
convicted murderer. The murderer robbed and killed drug dealers in Washington
DC., where he was conscious that there was no death penalty. He specifically
did not murder a drug dealer in Virginia because, and only because, he
envisioned himself strapped in the electric chair, which he had personally seen
many times while imprisoned in Virginia. (13)

Senator Dianne Feinstein explained, ''I remember well in the 1960s when I was
sentencing a woman convicted of robbery in the first degree and I remember
looking at her commitment sheet and I saw that she carried a weapon that was
unloaded into a grocery store robbery. I asked her the question: ‘Why was your
gun unloaded?’ She said to me: ‘So I would not panic, kill somebody, and get the
death penalty.’ That was firsthand testimony directly to me that the death
penalty in place in California in the sixties was in fact a deterrent.''(13A)

Logic requires that the individual deterrent effect cannot exist without the
general deterrent effect. Therefore, reason dictates that the general deterrent
effect must exist. The question is not: "Does deterrence exist?" It does. The
issue is: "What is the quantifiable impact of deterrence?"

Individual cases support the individual deterrent effect and such cases insure
that general deterrence must exist. And, for both, the evidence also suggests
that executions provide enhanced deterrence over incarceration.

VlI. Conflicting studies

In reviewing 30 years of deterrence studies, the strongest statement one may
make against deterrence is that there is conflicting data (14).

Yet, even when academic bias against capital punishment is overt, such as in the
case of the American Society of Criminology -- the subtitle to their death
penalty resources page is "Anti-Capital Punishment Resources" -- even they fail
to state that the death penalty does not deter some potential murderers, only
that "social science research has found no consistent evidence of crime
deterrence through execution." (15) That is far from stating that executions do
not deter. And the criminologists are, very likely, that academic group most
hostile toward the death penalty. What social science conflicts with the notion
that the potential for negative consequences restrains the behavior of some? And
most would agree that execution is the most serious negative consequence that a
murderer may face.

Numerous studies find that executions do deter. And there is a rational
conclusion based upon common experience. It appears that all criminal sanctions
deter some. It would be irrational to conclude that the most severe and
publicized sanction -- execution -- does not deter some potential murderers.

Those studies which do not find deterrence say that they could not detect it,
not that it doesn't exist. Those studies which find for deterrence state such.

As Professor Cloninger states: " . . . (Our recent) study is but another on a
growing list of empirical work that finds evidence consistent with the
deterrence hypothesis. These studies as a whole provide robust evidence --
evidence obtained from a variety of different models, data sets and
methodologies that yield the same conclusion. It is the cumulative effect of
these studies that causes any neutral observer to pause." (16)

Conflicting studies and reason both weigh in favor of the death penalty as a
deterrent and as an enhanced deterrent over lesser punishments.

VlII. The brutalization effect of executions

Some, particularly death penalty opponents, find that the brutalization effect
is more likely than the deterrent effect. The brutalization effect finds that
murders will increase because potential murderers will murder because of the
example of state executions.

Why would potential and active murderers be so influenced by the state in such a
deep philosophical manner, revealed by brutalization, but they wouldn't be more
affected by the simple "you murder, we execute you?"

Death penalty opponents make an interesting about face on this issue. They
insist that criminals are so thoughtless and impulsive that they can't be
affected by the potential of negative consequences but, then, those same
opponents see criminals as so contemplative that their criminal actions increase
BECAUSE those criminals follow the example of the state. One might ask those
opponents: "Is there any other government action which influences criminals in
such a fashion?" Do criminals kidnap more BECAUSE the state increases
incarceration rates? Do criminals give money to potential victims BECAUSE the
state donates to needy causes?

Murder rates and execution rates

Although deterrence is much more than a simple look at only execution rates and
murder rates, we do find that as executions have risen dramatically, the murder
rate has plunged.

From 1966-1980, a period which included our last national moratorium on
executions (June 1967- January 1976), murders in the United States more than
doubled from 11,040 to 23,040. The murder rate also nearly doubled, from 5.6 to
10.2/100,000. During that 1966-1980 period, the US averaged 1 execution every 3
years, with a maximum of two executions per year. From 1995-2000 executions
averaged 71 per year, a 21,000% increase over the 1966-1980 period. The US
murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2/100,000 in 1980 to 5.5/100,000 in 2000
-- a 46% reduction. The US murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966
(17).

The Texas example -- The murder rate in Harris County (Houston), Texas has
fallen 73% since executions resumed in 1982, through 2000, from 31/100,000 to
8.5/100,000 (18). Harris County is, by far, the most active death penalty
sentencing and execution jurisdiction in the US. The Harris County murder rate
dropped nearly 70% more than did the national murder rate, during similar
periods. Texas' murder rate dropped 62% during that same period, or 41% more
than the national average.

Potential murderers may have been affected by the example of the state of Texas
but, likely, not in a manner consistent with brutalization.

And "(t)he biggest decline in murder rates has occurred in states that
aggressively use capital punishment." (19)

After a thorough review of deterrence studies, Professor Samuel Cameron
observed, "The brutalization idea is not one the economists have given any
credence." "We must conclude that the deterrence effect dominates the opposing
brutalization effect." (20)

Reason, history, common sense and the studies weigh against the brutalization
effect.

lX. The incapacitation effect

The incapacitation effect states that executed murderers cannot harm or murder
again. Reason dictates that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm
and murder again than are executed murderers.

That obvious logic escapes death penalty opponents who say that we can have
foolproof incarceration. What hypocrisy. This is the same group of folks who
tell us that our system of justice is so fraught with error that we cannot
possibly continue the death penalty. Yet, the facts tell us that living
murderers harm and murder again, in prison, after escape and after improper
release. Executed murderers do not. In addition, the US death penalty appears
to be that criminal justice sanction which is the least likely to convict the
factually innocent and the most likely to remedy such rare error upon post
conviction review.

Stuart Taylor: "Statistical studies and common sense aside, it's undeniable that
the death penalty saves some lives: those of the prison guards and other inmates
who would otherwise be killed by murderers serving life sentences without
parole, and of people who might otherwise encounter murderous escapees". (21)

Under all circumstances, the execution of murderers will protect innocents at a
higher rate than will incarceration.

X. Death Penalty Opponents

Why is it that some death penalty opponents appear to laugh off any potential
for a deterrent effect of executions? Because to admit that executions deter
some potential murderers would be to admit that, in reaching their goals, they
will knowingly benefit murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent
lives. Of course, opponents will never prove it is not a deterrent and many
will admit that executions do deter some.

How many would still oppose executions if they knew that the evidence supported
the deterrent effect and that many more innocents are put at risk by not
executing?

Stuart Taylor: "So those of us who lean against the death penalty must confront
the very real possibility that abolishing it could lead to the violent deaths of
unknown numbers of innocent men, women, and children. And those who are still
skeptical that the death penalty deters any killings must also confront the
risk-benefit calculus suggested by political scientist John McAdams of Marquette
University: 'If we execute murderers, and there is, in fact, no deterrent
effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers,
and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the
killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former.
This, to me, is not a tough call.' " (22)

Xl. Conclusion

Those of us who support execution do so because it is a just punishment. The
moral foundation for all punishments is that they are deserved. One cannot
support a punishment based upon deterrence alone.

Reason, common sense and history all fall on the side of deterrence. Be it
Sweden or Rwanda, Texas or Michigan, Singapore or Chile, England or Japan,
whether high crime rates or low, the death penalty will always deter some
potential murderers. Regardless of jurisdiction, the potential for negative
outcomes will always restrict the behavior of some. And, the weight of the
evidence clearly supports execution as an enhanced deterrent.

As Professor Rubin states, "Our evidence is that there are substantial benefits
from executions and, thus, substantial costs of changing this policy (23).

We support execution as a just and appropriate forfeiture of lives which deserve
to be taken. We also support execution as a just and appropriate method to save
lives which deserve to be saved.

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS, BBC and many other
TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim
Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the
world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews
about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively
and internationally.

The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.